Thank you for your e-mail. The issue of the fake Sr. Lucy (who posed as the real Sr. Lucy after 1960) is covered near the end of the article below. That there was a fake Sr. Lucy starting in approximately 1960 is proven by 1) what the post-1960 “Sr. Lucy” said, did and endorsed in regard to the Message of Fatima, which blatantly contradicts the message of the real, pre-Vatican II Sr. Lucy; and 2) the photographic evidence.
It always amazes and perturbs us when we read or hear from false traditionalists who scoff at the idea that there was a fake Sr. Lucy. At the same time, most of these people reject the (phony and ridiculous) version of the Third Secret of Fatima which was released by the Vatican in 2000. Are they awake? They cannot have it both ways! The post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” – the one they declare couldn’t have been an impostor – publicly stated (and indicated by gestures on television for all to see) that the Vatican’s version of the Third Secret, released in 2000, is the real Third Secret of Fatima. Therefore, anyone who rejects (as he should) the phony and ridiculous version of the Third Secret of Fatima – which almost all “traditionalists” do, by the way – which was fraudulently released by the Vatican under John Paul II in 2000 must, if he possesses any logical consistency whatsoever, reject the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” (who fully and publicly endorsed it) as an impostor; for the real Sr. Lucy, who was promised Heaven by Our Lady of Fatima and was fully aware of the contents of the real Third Secret would not, of course, endorse as true that which was a fraudulent message.
The Brothers Dimond make a false distinction and then proceed from there to build a fake argument.
The so-called fake third secret released in 2000 does not have to be entirely fake in order to be a deliberate deception.
Nonetheless, a half-truth is a whole lie.
Some (such as Fr. Nicholas Gruner, RIP and Atila Guimaraes) have explained that when Sister Lucia set about to write down the Secret in 1943-44, she encountered a difficulty making the pen meet the paper, which resulted in the Secret being rendered in two parts. The first thing she was able to write was her description of what the 3 children had seen while the Lady spoke the words of the Third Secret. It is this account of Sr. Lucia's narration (personal interpretation or description) which the Vatican released in 2000. But that was not the Third Secret itself, because it contains no words of the Lady speaking. The second version, which Lucia was eventually able to write down and which contains the Lady's actual words, has not been made public yet.
There has been much speculation regarding what could have been so controversial, that is, why the words of the Lady were A) so difficult for Sr. Lucia to write them down and B) why the Vatican would be so tremendously reluctant to release them, even going to the extreme measures of killing the real Lucia, finding a replacement, hiding her from any witnesses who would blow the whistle and promoting a fake account of the entire Fatima history in order to confuse the Faithful.
For example, the authentic Secret could say there will be an evil Council (Vat.II) that would destroy the Mass in the world.
Or, it could say that pederasty among Catholic clerics would become a consequence of false worship and idolatry among Churchmen.
Or, it could contain admonition against attributing undue credibility to false religions worldwide (false ecumenism).
All three of these problems erupted after 1960, when the Third Secret was supposed to be released to the world, but was hidden.